W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > September 2006

RE: Updated EARL 1.0 Schema Editors' Draft

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:27:09 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA521882819014CF536@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>

Hi group,

Some comments, most of them already at [1] about 18 July draft without
any feedback and, probably, all of them non show-stoppers:

* "This version" and "Previous published version" links are incorrect

* 1.1 Structure of EARL Results

"Test Subject
  This can include: Web pages, tools..."

IMO it should be: Web CONTENT, tools...

"Test requirement
  What are we evaluating the subject against?..."

IMO we should adopt the new wording to avoid confusion (i.e. "Test
Criteria" instead of "Test requirement"). The same applies to the rest
of the document (Examples 2 and 3, the introduction at the 2.1 Assertion
section and the earl:result description at the same section)

Other times "Test Statement"  is used to refeer "Test Criteria", again I
suggest use always "Test Criteria" (This happens in the earl:test
description at the 2.1 Assertion section and in the earl:fail and
earl:notApplicable descriptions at the 2.6.1 Validity level section)

* 2.2 Assertor

  ... An Agent is a super class of foaf:Person, foaf:Organization and
foaf:Group which can all be used to describe an Assertor..."

Due to this description I think that the previous foaf:Person section is
redundant and not necessary (why a section for Person and not for
Organization or Group?)


  The Assertor is a compound group of persons and/or software..."

Should be:

  The Assertor is a compound group of AGENTS (PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS,
GROUPS) and/or software

* 2.5 Test Mode

  Where there is no detailed information about the test mode

IMO should be something like:


To avoid confusion with an "unknow" mode (no information at all)

* 2.6.2 Confidence Level

"...This may be used where a tool wants to assert..."

Is the confidence level supossed to be just for tools?

Additionaly, I think that Example 11 perfectly explains why the
confidence property makes no sense in EARL as currently developed. It

"...the interpretation of this value is application specific..."

IMO it make no sense to include a propery for application specific
values in a language to share data between applications. If you need
something specific to your application you should extend the language
for your specific use case.

* 2.7 Software Tool

I find the Example 13 obscure. It says:

"The software which was an Assertor in example 5 is now a Test Subject"

But that's not clear in the example. IMO could be better:

The software which was an Assertor in example 5 could also be used as a
Test Subject and make use of the inherited properties

* 4 Conformance

"An EARL Report is a set of instances of the Assertor class called

Sounds weird. Should be?:

An EARL Report is a set of instances of the ASSERTION class called

* Appendix A: EARL 1.0 Schema in RDF/XML

The xmlns:dct is missing

* The Appendix C section (changes) is apparently not up-to-date

* Appendix E and F should be renamed to D and E respectively as they are
in the table of contents

* Some typos

2.5 Test Mode: "querries" instead of "queries"
2.6.3 Instance Location: "re" and "occurence" instead of "occurrence"

[1] -

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: public-wai-ert-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-wai-ert-request@w3.org] En nombre de Shadi Abou-Zahra
> Enviado el: jueves, 07 de septiembre de 2006 15:26
> Para: public-wai-ert@w3.org
> Asunto: Updated EARL 1.0 Schema Editors' Draft
> Dear Group,
> Ref: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Schema-20060905>
> Please find an updated Editors' Draft of the EARL 1.0 Schema 
> document. As discussed during the previous teleconference 
> call, please review this draft to seek for any show-stoppers. 
> Otherwise this draft will be published as a Working Draft if 
> no objections are voiced.
> NOTE: since this draft went out later than we discussed, the 
> new deadline for comments is:
>  * THURSDAY 14 SEPTEMBER, 2006 *
> For each of your comments, please be sure to clarify if it is 
> OK to publish without addressing the raised issue in this 
> upcoming Working Draft publication or if it is essential to 
> seek resolution before publication.
> Regards,
>   Shadi
> -- 
> Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe | 
> Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG | 
> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ | 
> Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ | 
> WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ | 
> Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ | 
> 2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France | 
> Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 | 
Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 10:27:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:54 UTC